Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Petitioner had undergone apprenticeship training as a Trade Machinist in the Transformers and Electricals Kerala Limited, first respondent Company as evidenced by Ext.P2. First respondent invited applications from eligible persons for appointment to the post of Operator Grade III Trainee-Machinist. Petitioner was also interviewed, ultimately, he was not appointed. Hence this writ petition claiming that since the petitioner was an apprentice, he was entitled to preference, in terms of the provisions of the Apprentices Act. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and another v. U.P.Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and others (AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 1115).

(1) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits.
(2) For this, a trainee would not be required to get his name sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of this Court in Union of India v. Hargopal, AIR 1987 SC 1227, would permit this.
(3) If age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the same would be relaxed in accordance with what is stated in this regard, if any, in the concerned service rule. If the service rule be silent on this aspect, relaxation to the extent of the period for which the apprentice had undergone training would be given.
(4) The concerned training institute would maintain a list of the persons trained year wise.

The persons trained earlier would be treated as senior to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentices, preference shall be given to those who are senior."

W.P.(C). No. 20787 OF 2009

4. It is contended that for an apprentice, a written test was not necessary and therefore if the marks obtained in the written test is eschewed from consideration, then the petitioner ought to have been selected.